Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by elaborating on what each signal computes and the trading question it answers. It does not disclose return format or rate limits, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden and the signal semantics are genuinely informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary of what the tool does, followed by bullet points that are consistently formatted as 'signal name — explanation'. Each bullet earns its place by uniquely describing a different trading signal. This is both concise and well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex with 10 signals and no output schema. The description thoroughly explains each signal's purpose, which covers most of the contextual need. However, 'decision envelope' is left undefined, leaving some ambiguity about what the output contains, so the description could be slightly more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds substantial meaning to the 'signal' parameter by explaining each enum value in trading terms, which the schema does not. For example, 'vol_carry — VRP carry credit-spread selection: is IV elevated enough to sell premium via credit spreads?' goes far beyond the schema's simple list. This meaningfully compensates for any schema brevity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a strategy decision envelope for one of 10 options-based trading signals.' It then enumerates all 10 signals with distinct purposes, which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flow_signals or get_dealer_premium. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly conveys when to use each signal by stating what question each answers (e.g., 'flow_anomaly — directional options-flow imbalance: is call/put premium skewing bullish or bearish?'), giving users situation-specific guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.